ArticleGlobal & regional health technology assessment
Real-world application of an integrated MCDA-economic framework in continence care technology: a hospital-based case study.
Article in Global & regional health technology assessment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HTA) supports transparent decisions about adopting medical technologies by balancing practical benefits against clinical, organizational, and economic consequences. This study evaluated a single-use continence care system using an integrated decision-support framework. Methods: The single-use system, based on disposable absorbent components, was compared with the standard reusable bedpan/urinal pathway, including washing and reprocessing. The assessment combined Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Budget Impact Analysis (BIA), Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA), a 30-day field test across inpatient units at two hospital sites, and an implementation-specific questionnaire. During the field test, 168 admissions were recorded. MCDA used a weighted aggregate score, while the economic analysis adopted the hospital perspective over three years. Deterministic sensitivity analyses examined economic inputs and MCDA domain weights. Results: The single-use system offered perceived advantages in ease of use, hygiene, and odor reduction. However, these did not offset limited supporting evidence, lower patient-comfort ratings, operational issues, and higher costs. The MCDA score decreased from 4.80 for standard care to 2.60 for the single-use system (difference: -2.20). Cost per patient increased from €0.65 to €1.00, an incremental cost of €0.35. The three-year budget impact was €2,634 and remained within the local affordability threshold. As the technology was more costly and produced lower overall MCDA value, it was classified as dominated. Sensitivity analyses did not alter the recommendation. Conclusion: The integrated MCDA-economic framework supported transparent hospital-level decision-making. Affordability and perceived practical advantages were insufficient to justify routine adoption of the single-use continence care system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.